RE: Ethics Complaint Against Speaker Newt Gingrich and Request for
Reopening the Matter of Donald Jones

Dear Chairwoman Johnson:

This letter constitutes a formal ethics complaint against House Speaker
Newt Gingrich based on new allegations of improper conduct, and a call
to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ("Ethics Committee")
to reopen the matter of Donald Jones. Three recent news articles cite statements
by Speaker Gingrich that raise new questions about possible violations
of federal law and House Rules by Speaker Gingrich in the Donald Jones
case. These new statements by the Speaker, reported by Roll Call,
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Associated Press,
call into serious question the thoroughness of the investigation by the
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct into our November 15,
1995 ethics complaint against Speaker Newt Gingrich, which was officially
transmitted to the Ethics Committee by Representative George Miller(1).

We are writing to urge the Committee to investigate these new allegations
which have not been previously reviewed. Furthermore, we urge the Committee
to reopen the investigation of our previous complaint in light of these
new statements by Speaker Gingrich, as well as the transparent failure
of the Ethics Committee to interview important witnesses in the Donald
Jones case. We strongly urge -- given the investigative failures of the
Ethics Committee in this Donald Jones matter -- that any investigation
into this new complaint and the Donald Jones matter be conducted by special
counsel.

A: Did Speaker Gingrich Violate Federal Law and House Rules Prohibiting
the Use of Official Resources for Unofficial Purposes?

An April 2, 1996 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reported that "Gingrich said that Jones spent 95 percent of his time
on a limited project -- the Earning by Learning reading program for at-risk
children..."(2) Similarly, an Associated
Press article reported that:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday that a Wisconsin businessman
whose use of his congressional office was criticized by the House ethics
committee spent nearly all his time on a reading program for children....

Rep. Gingrich said...[that Jones] was actually working on the Speaker's
Earning by Learning program...(3)

Earning By Learning is a non-profit organization with no official ties
to the United States House of Representatives. Speaker Gingrich's comments
suggest that he may have improperly allowed Donald Jones to use the Speaker's
official resources for unofficial purposes. Federal law broadly prohibits
such misuse of official resources for unofficial purposes. 31 U.S.C. 1301(a)
states that:

Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations
were made except as otherwise provided by law.

Similarly, the House Ethics Manual states that:

No outside organization may use official funds or resources, including
House office space, the frank, and staff time.(4)

The House Ethics Manual also states that:

Official and unofficial activities must remain absolutely separate.
By statute as well as regulations of the Committee on House Administration,
official resources may not be used to assist the work of an outside organization.(5)

In the "investigation" of the Donald Jones matter, did the
Ethics Committee determine whether Donald Jones used official resources
in support of Earning By Learning? Did Donald Jones use a desk, office
space, or secretarial help in the Speaker's offices? Did he use official
photocopiers or fax machines for Earning By Learning activities? Was this
matter ever investigated? If not, why not? If the matter was not investigated,
the Ethics Committee surely must now conduct such an investigation. That
investigation, to surmount minimal standards of thoroughness and credibility,
must include questioning, under oath, Speaker Gingrich, Donald Jones, Daniel
Meyer, and any other witness possessing material information about the
activities of Donald Jones within the offices of Speaker Gingrich.

Speaker Gingrich's comments as reported in the April 2, 1996 article
in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution indicate that Donald Jones contacted
parties in New Zealand, on behalf or Republicans in Congress, regarding
privatization issues. The article states that "Gingrich said Jones'
role was limited to helping Republicans make some basic contacts with New
Zealand, which recently had embarked on privatization efforts Republicans
wanted to observe." Damon Chappie and Juliet Eilperin of Roll Call
wrote that:

Speaking to business leaders in his district, Gingrich said on Monday
that as far as telecommunications issues worked on by Jones, "his
primary contribution was to get in touch with New Zealand, whose government
had recently" embarked on a privatization effort.(6)

Did Donald Jones personally benefit from making these New Zealand contacts
through the Speaker's office? While Donald Jones was making New Zealand
contacts for the Congressional Republicans, and enjoying the privilege
of possessing an official Congressional ID card, he was also trying to
establish a $13 million fiber optic cable network in New Zealand. According
to a June 16, 1995 Information Access Company Newsletter:

Cyberstar Networks, is preparing to issue tenders for a $13 million
fibre optic cable network in the Nelson region in the north west of New
Zealand's South Island....Cyberstar founder, Donald Jones, was reportedly
in New Zealand last month for meetings with the prime minister.(7)

The April 4 Roll Call article reported that:

Jones, in fact, traveled to New Zealand last May and met with senior
government officials, including Prime Minister Jim Bolger. A spokeswoman
for the New Zealand embassy here confirmed that Jones had met with Bolger
"several times" in 1995, including during a trip by Bolger to
the United States. Cyberstar sought and received network operator status
from New Zealand's Commerce Ministry.

Were any of Jones's business ties for Cyberstar Networks made through
calls from the Speaker's office? How did Donald Jones represent himself
in those business conversations with New Zealand authorities? Did Speaker
Gingrich allow Jones to exploit for personal gain the stature of the office
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives?

During the same period that Jones was a volunteer in the Speaker's office,
and was trying to complete his cable deal in New Zealand, he was selected
to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Jones said to the Senate
subcommittee:

My company, Cyberstar, is in the advanced stages of developing full
service fiber optic cable television networks in New Zealand....The Cyberstar
team, of which I am the Leader of Change, is excited about investing in
the New Zealand telecommunications industry and the opportunities it presents.(8)

That plan to build a full service fiber optic network has collapsed,
according to an October 20, 1995 article in the Information Access Company's
Newsletter.

If Gingrich allowed Donald Jones -- who has contributed at least $125,000
to the Republican Party and $25,000 to GOPAC -- to use the Speaker's office
to improve his own stature and further his business dealings in New Zealand,
that is an improper use of the Speaker's office for private benefit, as
well as an improper favor provided to an important campaign contributor.
Similarly, if the Speaker allowed Donald Jones to ostensibly run an international
business out of the Speaker's office, that, too, is a misuse of official
resources for non-official, commercial purposes.

C: Did Speaker Gingrich Mislead the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct Regarding Donald Jones's Activities?

The March 29, 1996 Ethics Committee letter to Speaker Gingrich stated
that the Speaker "office took caution to ensure that Mr. Jones performed
no official duties..."(9) Roll Call
reported on February 26, 1996 that "Gingrich and Jones both deny that
Jones acted as anything other than an 'informal advisor'..."(10)

However, the Roll Call and Atlanta Journal-Constitution
articles strongly suggest that Jones did in fact perform official duties
within the Speaker's office by contacting New Zealand government officials
on behalf of Congressional Republicans who were interested in telecommunications
privatization issues.

Do the Speaker's comments contradict the Speaker's statement to the
Ethics Committee about the Jones matter? Since the Speaker's statement
in the Donald Jones matter has not been publicly released, we do not know
contents of the statement. But we assume it reflects the Committee's conclusion
that the Speaker's "office took caution to ensure that Mr. Jones performed
no official duties..." If Speaker Gingrich misled the Ethics Committee
about Mr. Jones's role and activities within the Speaker's office, then
he has likely violated House Rule 43, Clause 1, which states that:

A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall
conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably
on the House of Representatives.

The House Committee of Standards of Official Conduct has previously
disciplined a House Member for making false statements to the Ethics Committee.(11)

Similarly, does the Speaker's statement to the Ethics Committee describe
the extent of Donald Jones's activities in Gingrich's offices on behalf
of Earning By Learning? If not, why did the Speaker omit this key fact?

We strongly urge the Ethics Committee to publicly disclose the Speaker's
statement in the matter of Donald Jones, so that citizens can independently
evaluate its accuracy, completeness, and veracity.

D: Failure of the Ethics Committee to Interview Parties Knowledgeable
About Jones's Activities in Gingrich's Office, and Other Investigative
Failures

Paul Davis, the attorney representing Donald Jones's former partners,
sent a letter to you, Chairwoman Johnson, and to Ethics Committee Ranking
Minority Member Jim McDermott on March 6, 1996, conveying the willingness
of his clients to provide testimony about Jones's activities within the
Speaker's office. That letter stated that his clients:

believe that a full review of this record will reveal a pattern of conduct
emanating from within the office of a member of Congress that has damaged
their civil interests. My client[s] have information that will help to
ensure that their actions are not cast in a false light and that the Members
of your Committee are not mislead in their investigation of the case involving
Donald G. Jones. They are willing to cooperate in appropriate ways to ensure
that the truth is revealed.(12)

On April 4, Roll Call reported that subsequent to the March 6
letter:

Davis told Roll Call that he was contacted by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.),
the ethics panel's ranking member, who inquired about the evidence Davis
had. McDermott told Davis to collect the information and send it to ethics
Chairwoman Nancy Johnson (R-Conn). Davis said he prepared a packet and
sent it to Johnson but never received any communication from her or the
ethics committee staff.

The packet sent by Davis to you, Chairwoman Johnson, contained, according
to Roll Call, "evidence, including documents and phone records,
that demonstrated that Jones was working on telecommunications issues for
the Speaker." It also contained a cover memorandum that stated:

My clients are prepared to provide information concerning the business
activities of Mr. Jones during the period that he was operating out of
the office of Speaker Gingrich. In effect, they are prepared to provide
specific substantiation for claims included in the attached Jones memo.(13)

The failure of the Ethics Committee to request and receive testimony
from Davis's clients, Tim Brown and Jeff Coleman, calls into question the
thoroughness of the Ethics Committee investigation into the Donald Jones
matter. Why did you not ask Brown and Coleman for their testimony? Will
you immediately receive and consider their testimony? If not, why not?

On April 22, Roll Call reported on the contents of a new Donald Jones
memorandum:

Donald Jones, a Wisconsin telecommunications entrepreneur who was granted
Congressional staff privileges by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) last
year, cited the business interests of a family that has contributed heavily
to the Speaker in a briefing to Gingrich on government regulation of the
Internet.

Jones, whose controversial role as a quasi-Gingrich staffer advising
the Speaker on matters on which he had a business interest...wrote in a
memo that he told the Speaker "about concerns that entrepreneurs have
making investments facing the possibility of government controls and cited
Cam, Atlanta, and MindSpring."

Cam refers to Campbell Lanier, a Georgia telecommunications mogul....Lanier
and his family have been generous to Gingrich, providing more than $56,000
over the past fiver years to Gingrich's campaign and GOPAC...(14)

Apparently, the Ethics Committee did not obtain this memorandum until
after it had issued its March 29 ruling in the Donald Jones matter.
Why did the Ethics Committee fail to uncover it?

Equally enigmatic is the failure of the Ethics Committee to obtain the
notes of House leadership meetings on telecommunications legislation and
the Speaker's meetings with telecommunications executives to determine
whether in fact Donald Jones was a participant, or present at the meetings.
How could the Ethics Committee possibly evaluate Donald Jones's claim to
have attended these meetings on telecommunications legislation without
reviewing contemporaneous notes of the meetings?

According to the March 29, 1996 Ethics Committee letter to Speaker Gingrich,
"the Committee...considered your [Gingrich's] response of December
22, 1995, which included an affidavit of Donald Jones, and letters from
Daniel Meyer and Jack Howard of your staff." However, Adam Clymer
of the New York Times noted that, aside from this submitted testimony,
"no one was questioned, and no documents were requested."(15)
The Committee's failure to question witnesses or request documents seriously
undercuts the credibility of the Ethics Committee "investigation"
of the Donald Jones matter. We believe you owe the American people a complete
explanation and accounting for what appears to be a slipshod "investigation"
in this case.

This is not the first time that this House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct has been criticized for failure to thoroughly investigate
credible leads regarding the Gingrich ethics complaints. This House Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct has repeatedly faltered and stumbled in
its duties to undertake professional, impartial, non-partisan investigations
in the ethics complaints brought against House Speaker Newt Gingrich. These
failings include:

Incompetent sluggishness. On June 29, 1995, Adam Clymer wrote
in the New York Times that:

With less than a week until the deadline its head had set for disposing
of the charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich, the House ethics committee
has yet to question many of the most obvious witnesses about a college
course Mr. Gingrich taught, a book contract or other allegations of misconduct.

Spokesmen for the political action committee Mr. Gingrich headed and
the college where he taught a course that has been criticized as an illegal,
partisan use of tax-exempt funds said no information had been sought from
them. So did a publisher who publicly charged that the original $4.5 million
deal for Mr. Gingrich's book was improper, and a business organization
from which Mr. Gingrich was accused of improperly soliciting personnel.(16)

Violating Committee precedent. Ethics Committee rules state
that if the Committee, by a majority vote, finds that an ethics complaint
"merits further inquiry, it shall adopt a Resolution of Preliminary
Inquiry."(17) But last year the Committee
began some type of inquiry regarding Gingrich's book deal with HarperCollins
Publishers without having approved an official "preliminary inquiry."
Was this done to save the Speaker from the embarrassment of an Ethics Committee
vote in favor of a preliminary inquiry?

Failure to authorize outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints.
Even though it is standard procedure for the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct to hire outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints
concerning possibly serious violations of federal law or House Rules, this
Committee has been most unwilling to take such action regarding Speaker
Gingrich. Only one part of one complaint against Speaker Gingrich has been
sent to special counsel for investigation. Such reticence in employing
outside counsel, combined with what appears to be an incomplete investigation
by Ethics Committee members and staff in the Donald Jones matter, has dramatically
undercut the credibility of the ethics process in the Gingrich case. Why
has Speaker Gingrich received such special treatment before the Ethics
Committee?

Narrow mandate of outside counsel. The Ethics Committee has
only authorized special counsel to investigate one charge: whether Speaker
Gingrich has misused 501(c)(3) foundation resources for political purposes.
The narrowness of this mandate, given the long list of other serious charges
against Speaker Gingrich currently and formerly pending before the Committee,
is a blight upon the notion of the self-regulation of Congressional ethics.

Manifest unwillingness of the Ethics Committee to receive documents
related to the Gingrich case. When Representative David Bonior attached
over 8,000 pages of evidence to a December 14th, 1995 ethics complaint
against the Speaker, the Ethics Committee rejected the complaint without
explanation, and returned the documents.(18)
The complaint was refiled and is still pending. Given the performance of
the Ethics Committee in the Gingrich case, this complaint must be sent
to special counsel for investigation. Any attempt by the Committee to perform
an internal investigation of this complaint in lieu of a special counsel
investigation is entirely unacceptable.

Failure to thoroughly investigate bulk sales of the Speaker's book.
Juliet Eilperin of Roll Call wrote on November 13, 1995:

After making initial inquiries into the bulk sales of House Speaker
Newt Gingrich's (R-Ga) book "To Renew America" more than a month
ago, the ethics committee is no longer probing the matter, the panel's
chair told Roll Call last week.

In an interview Thursday, ethics committee Chairwoman Nancy Johnson
(R-Conn) said the panel "didn't find any information of interest at
this point" on the bulk-sales issue.

"The issue was raised," Johnson said. "The staff did
some work on it. At this point, it's not being pursued."

Interviews by Roll Call with the five organizations that have been publicly
identified as having purchased bulk orders of Gingrich's book found that
none of them were contacted by ethics staffers or Members as part of the
probe.(19)

Failure to thoroughly investigate the activities of Joe Gaylord
in the Speaker's offices. The Ethics Committee wrote Speaker Gingrich
that:

the Committee has found that your use of Mr. Joseph Gaylord was in violation
of House Rule 45...Specifically, the Committee found that Mr. Gaylord's
activities during the transition of interviewing prospective staff violate
our rules and that his regular, routine presence in congressional offices,
while in and of itself not a violation of House rules, creates the appearance
of the improper commingling of political and official resources.(20)

The Committee merely found that Joe Gaylord's activities preceding the
104th Congress were a violation of House Rule 45. Elizabeth Drew, in her
book Showdown, strongly suggests that Gaylord's was performing official
duties during the 104th Congress. She writes:

A close Gingrich associate said, "Joe is really the chief of staff,"....A
close associate said, "Joe Gaylord has line authority for everything
in Newt's life." Another said, "Gaylord has complete control
over Newt's schedule" -- and then he added "along with Dan Meyer."...
Gaylord was Gingrich's chief political strategist, and was also known to
chair substantive meetings on matters of interest to Gingrich. A close
associate said, "Newt delegates to Joe, and Joe calls other members
of Newt's staff and gives instructions. Joe sits in staff meetings where
he's present and Newt is not, and the next ranking person is Dan Meyer."...When
there was a substantive issue that involved politics -- and few didn't
-- Gaylord was often in the room....In 1995, aware that eyes were on his
role, Gaylord's physical presence was reduced, but not his influence.(21)

Another passage in Showdown describes a meeting on the House
Republican Medicare legislative proposal:

Gingrich had been deeply involved in the details of the Republican proposal.
On September 11, a meeting in Gingrich's office with the relevant subcommittee
chairmen and Gingrich advisers, including Joe Gaylord, had gone on until
1:45 A.M., where the group went through the proposal line by line.(22)

The Ethics Committee made no mention of this evidence of Gaylord's official
activities during the 104th Congress in its letter to the Speaker. Apparently,
the Ethics Committee did not uncover this evidence in its investigation
into the Joe Gaylord matter.

Inept procedures. When Speaker Gingrich gave testimony last
year to the Ethics Committee about his book deal with Rupert Murdoch's
HarperCollins Publishers, the Committee had not completed a thorough investigation
of that matter. How could Committee members know what to ask Speaker Gingrich
about the circumstances surrounding the book deal with Murdoch without
having conducted a thorough investigation first? Such procedures are highly
irregular. Usually, an investigator questions the "target" just
before a thorough investigation is nearly completed.

Given these failures of the Ethics process in the Gingrich cases, we
request that the Ethics Committee release the statements of Speaker Gingrich,
Daniel Meyer, Donald Jones, and Jack Howard regarding the Donald Jones
case, so that the public can independently assess the veracity and completeness
of their statements.

When considering what level of sanction is appropriate in this case,
the Committee should bear in mind that it has repeatedly criticized Gingrich
for violations of House Rules or other blameworthy conduct:

Regarding the activities of Donald Jones within the Speaker's offices
(1996):

Based on this Committee's construction of House Rule 45, Mr. Jones'
participation in your office as an "informal advisor" did not
comply with applicable guidelines issued by this Committee governing interns
or volunteers.(23)

Regarding the book contract with Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins Publishers
(1995):

...the Committee strongly questions the appropriateness of what some
could describe as an attempt by you to capitalize on your office. As recent
events demonstrate, existing rules permit a Member to reap significant
and immediate financial benefit which appears to be based primarily on
his or her position. At a minimum, this creates the impression of exploiting
one's office for personal gain. Such a perception is especially troubling
when it pertains to the office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional
office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior.(24)

Regarding the activities of Joseph Gaylord in the Speaker's offices
(1995):

...the Committee has found that your use of Mr. Joseph Gaylord was in
violation of House Rule 45, which prohibits the use of unofficial resources
for official purposes.(25)

Regarding the use of the House Floor for commercial purposes (1995):

...the Committee has found a misuse of the House Floor....The House
Floor should not be used for commercial purposes, and since a caller to
this number was offered only the option of buying a set of tapes, the Committee
finds the use of a 1-800 number to be an improper solicitation. (26)

Regarding the use of the House floor to advertise a GOPAC meeting (1995):

...the Committee has found a similar violation in your references on
the House Floor in 1990 regarding a nationwide town meeting sponsored by
GOPAC.(27)

Regarding the Marathon Travel mailing (1990):

The Committee concludes that you were remiss in your oversight and administration
of your congressional office, which gave rise to the improper correspondence
cited in the complaint. Accordingly, you are directed to immediately take
steps to preclude recurrence of the type of improper activity here involved.
You are further placed on notice that a future recurrence of improper use
of mail and resources may result in more severe Committee action.(28)

Regarding the financial disclosure of a real estate transaction (1990):

The Committee has also determined that the acquisition of certain real
estate with your daughter, as well as the underlying liability you incurred,
should have been reported on your Financial Disclosure Statements for the
appropriate calendar years.(29)

Incredibly, given this history of violations of House Rules and other
improper conduct by Speaker Gingrich, the House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct has yet to apply any sanction to Speaker Gingrich.

F: Conclusion

The House Ethics Committee has a responsibility to the American public
to conduct thorough investigations of possible violations of federal law
or House Rules by House Members. Failure to conduct thorough investigations
undercuts the legitimacy and moral authority of the Congress.

As it stands, the House Ethics Committee's "investigation"
into the Donald Jones matter is incomplete and transparently inadequate.
Given Speaker Gingrich's contradictory statements about Donald Jones's
activities within the Speaker's office, and the apparent failure to receive
testimony from Tim Brown and Jeff Coleman or to question anyone in the
case, the House Ethics Committee must immediately take steps to complete
the investigation into the Donald Jones matter. The Committee must send
this new complaint and our November 15, 1995 complaint to special counsel
for investigation. Anything less will further jeopardize the future of
the self-regulation of Congressional ethics.

Lastly, by failing to punish Speaker Gingrich for his various wrongdoings,
the Ethics Committee sets an extremely bad precedent. The import is this:
that members of Congress who repeatedly break rules will escape unscathed
from Ethics Committee action. Such a precedent is highly destructive to
the House Ethics Committee, and to the Congress.

Sincerely,

Gary Ruskin

Director

Ralph Nader

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that I have today, by hand delivery, provided an
exact copy of this complaint to the Respondent in this matter, Congressman
Newt Gingrich, at the following address:

8. Prepared Statement of Donald G. Jones, President
and Leader of Change, Cyberstar, Before the Subcommittee on East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 29, 1995.
See Attachment #6.

13. Memorandum from Paul Davis to U.S. Representative
Nancy Johnson Re: Donald G. Jones activity in Speaker's office, March 14,
1996. See Attachment #9. The "attached Jones memo" referred to
by Paul Davis is the June 30, 1995 memorandum by Donald Jones titled "Six
Months of Newt's '95 revolution" which is included in Attachment #1.

23. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking Democratic Member
Jim McDermott to Speaker Newt Gingrich, March 29, 1996. See Attachment
#17.

24. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct Chairman Nancy L. Johnson and Ranking Democratic Member
Jim McDermott to Speaker Newt Gingrich, December 6, 1995. See Attachment
#18.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Correspondence from House Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct Chairman Julian C. Dixon and Ranking Minority Member
John T. Myers to Representative Newt Gingrich, March 8, 1990. See Attachment
#19.